Not sure why they can't fix the motor, but the motorized ones can have a practical for people with ingress/egress issues. Doubt that is the case here, but they shouldn't be scorned entirely.

In this case the motor doesn't really lift the way it sounds, they more fold up and down when the car is locked/unlocked. There is no practical purpose to them being motorized. I do agree that true lifting running boards may help some people, but this guy is definitely not someone who needs that.

wouldnt moving them up help with airflow and gas mileage. i assume this is why they move.

I think somebody needs to add wings to this truck's motorized running boards.

Not sure why they can't fix the motor, but the motorized ones can have a practical for people with ingress/egress issues. Doubt that is the case here, but they shouldn't be scorned entirely.

In this case the motor doesn't really lift the way it sounds, they more fold up and down when the car is locked/unlocked. There is no practical purpose to them being motorized. I do agree that true lifting running boards may help some people, but this guy is definitely not someone who needs that.

wouldnt moving them up help with airflow and gas mileage. i assume this is why they move.

I think somebody needs to add wings to this truck's motorized running boards.

It worked for the maxi pad industry.

I hate this particular thread so much. But I almost threw up laughing so hard because of this comment. Thank you TGS,

Not sure why they can't fix the motor, but the motorized ones can have a practical for people with ingress/egress issues. Doubt that is the case here, but they shouldn't be scorned entirely.

In this case the motor doesn't really lift the way it sounds, they more fold up and down when the car is locked/unlocked. There is no practical purpose to them being motorized. I do agree that true lifting running boards may help some people, but this guy is definitely not someone who needs that.

wouldnt moving them up help with airflow and gas mileage. i assume this is why they move.

I think somebody needs to add wings to this truck's motorized running boards.

They are advertised to move up to give more ground clearance. *rolleyes*

That's idiotic. One of the good things about proper, fixed, running boards is that they should prevent your rocker panels from being bashed in. Since movable ones can't be solidly mounted (tautologically), they would utterly fail to do that.

They are advertised to move up to give more ground clearance. *rolleyes*

That's idiotic. One of the good things about proper, fixed, running boards is that they should prevent your rocker panels from being bashed in. Since movable ones can't be solidly mounted (tautologically), they would utterly fail to do that.

Ya its pretty dumb...

Quote

AMP Research invented POWERSTEP™, the automatic, electric-powered running board that instantly extends when you open your door, and then hides itself safely out of sight when the doors close for improved ground clearance, aerodynamics and appearance.

You can get a mini PC for well <$100, a netbook < $250. I'm quite surprised so many people are still willing to pay big amounts of money for premium products while computers and consumer electronics can be dirt cheap.

You can get an absolute garbage one, sure.

Mini PC for under $100? You're talking, what, a raspberry pi with a few addons? Or something of comparable processing power. Similarly, netbook under $250... come on.

I got an Asus C200MA Chromebook for $100 from Amazon during their manufactured holiday a couple months ago. It's actually fast enough, at least for web browsing and writing R code.

Hardest part about moving is finding a new barber. I've had 3 good ones in my life. 2 are in the same shop. Now I've just moved again, and I can either just schedule it around when I visit my parents, or else go through the process of finding a new one. What a pain.

+1. My usual shop located by my old house 25 minutes away was closed for a long weekend and I really needed a cut. So, I went to another shop that is actually around the corner from my house. The barber there (who happened to be female) asked if I was new to the area since I had never been in before. I said no, I go to so and so normally but they were closed today and I really needed a cut. She then quipped that most men are more faithful to their barber then their wives or girlfriends. I laughed, because it's probably true.

The hairstylist who'd I'd been going to once every four-to-five months for nearly nine years died unexpectedly earlier this year. That was really shocking. Now, I'm so ashamed because I followed the referral from my friend to a new stylist, and while I really like how she cuts my hair, it costs more! (Fortunately, I'm still just a haircut girl, no coloring or other expensive processes.)

Guy complaining about how gas taxes are too much and other states have it better, would save thousands if he moved out of state, etc. This is coming from a guy who commutes to his office job in a full size pickup. Because, you know, gas taxes are really important when you are getting 15 mpg.

Spendypants colleague was buying furniture for their house this morning. Another colleague pointed out that they are digging themselves out of debt and maybe don't need more furniture but should save that money.

Spendypants colleague started ranting defensively, claiming they are out of debt as they owe less than $1000 to family and they need furniture because it is "for the house which is an investment" (house is owned by their parents and a bank, and they pay far less than the mortgage to live there).

I can guarantee that as our next pay approaches we the office will be listening to this person complaining about how their credit card balance has ballooned and how tight things are. .

Spendypants colleague started ranting defensively, claiming they are out of debt as they owe less than $1000 to family and they need furniture because it is "for the house which is an investment" (house is owned by their parents and a bank, and they pay far less than the mortgage to live there).

He is not too far off unfortunately.

Before the '09 crash I watched a lot of HGTV and home selling shows for a period of one to two months. Why I stopped watching was this:

There was one episode of a show where a lady and her husband were unable to their home.

It was one the market for over a year and not a single offer

That meant no one was even interested enough to give a lowball

An interior decorator (the hosts) comes in, spends sub-300$ in paint and pictures and curtains, and rearranges the furniture

Within a few weeks their is a bidding war and they get more than they listed their house for

I had to stop after watching this madness. Just three hundred dollars and a day of labour from an interior decorator turned the house from pathetic to attractive. If a lowball was 15,000 below the listed price and they got 5000 over it, just for how the house looked buyers where willing to pay more than an additional 20K. No one saw the beauty within the home or maybe people don't realize that they don't keep the furniture in the house they buy.

Spendypants colleague started ranting defensively, claiming they are out of debt as they owe less than $1000 to family and they need furniture because it is "for the house which is an investment" (house is owned by their parents and a bank, and they pay far less than the mortgage to live there).

He is not too far off unfortunately.

Before the '09 crash I watched a lot of HGTV and home selling shows for a period of one to two months. Why I stopped watching was this:

There was one episode of a show where a lady and her husband were unable to their home.

It was one the market for over a year and not a single offer

That meant no one was even interested enough to give a lowball

An interior decorator (the hosts) comes in, spends sub-300$ in paint and pictures and curtains, and rearranges the furniture

Within a few weeks their is a bidding war and they get more than they listed their house for

I had to stop after watching this madness. Just three hundred dollars and a day of labour from an interior decorator turned the house from pathetic to attractive. If a lowball was 15,000 below the listed price and they got 5000 over it, just for how the house looked buyers where willing to pay more than an additional 20K. No one saw the beauty within the home or maybe people don't realize that they don't keep the furniture in the house they buy.

Spendypants colleague started ranting defensively, claiming they are out of debt as they owe less than $1000 to family and they need furniture because it is "for the house which is an investment" (house is owned by their parents and a bank, and they pay far less than the mortgage to live there).

He is not too far off unfortunately.

Before the '09 crash I watched a lot of HGTV and home selling shows for a period of one to two months. Why I stopped watching was this:

There was one episode of a show where a lady and her husband were unable to their home.

It was one the market for over a year and not a single offer

That meant no one was even interested enough to give a lowball

An interior decorator (the hosts) comes in, spends sub-300$ in paint and pictures and curtains, and rearranges the furniture

Within a few weeks their is a bidding war and they get more than they listed their house for

I had to stop after watching this madness. Just three hundred dollars and a day of labour from an interior decorator turned the house from pathetic to attractive. If a lowball was 15,000 below the listed price and they got 5000 over it, just for how the house looked buyers where willing to pay more than an additional 20K. No one saw the beauty within the home or maybe people don't realize that they don't keep the furniture in the house they buy.

/rant

I don't think you can believe some (most?) of what you see on HGTV...

It's not that unbelievable though. One of realtor friends tells stories about how buyers get turned off by the most superficial things. One house had purple carpet in the living room, and fetched about 15K less than comps because the seller wouldn't replace it. It's amazing how many people can't see the forest for the trees.

Spendypants colleague started ranting defensively, claiming they are out of debt as they owe less than $1000 to family and they need furniture because it is "for the house which is an investment" (house is owned by their parents and a bank, and they pay far less than the mortgage to live there).

He is not too far off unfortunately.

Before the '09 crash I watched a lot of HGTV and home selling shows for a period of one to two months. Why I stopped watching was this:

There was one episode of a show where a lady and her husband were unable to their home.

It was one the market for over a year and not a single offer

That meant no one was even interested enough to give a lowball

An interior decorator (the hosts) comes in, spends sub-300$ in paint and pictures and curtains, and rearranges the furniture

Within a few weeks their is a bidding war and they get more than they listed their house for

I had to stop after watching this madness. Just three hundred dollars and a day of labour from an interior decorator turned the house from pathetic to attractive. If a lowball was 15,000 below the listed price and they got 5000 over it, just for how the house looked buyers where willing to pay more than an additional 20K. No one saw the beauty within the home or maybe people don't realize that they don't keep the furniture in the house they buy.

/rant

I don't think you can believe some (most?) of what you see on HGTV...

It's not that unbelievable though. One of realtor friends tells stories about how buyers get turned off by the most superficial things. One house had purple carpet in the living room, and fetched about 15K less than comps because the seller wouldn't replace it. It's amazing how many people can't see the forest for the trees.

Absolutely! When I looked at homes, I could see things that would need to go if I owned it, but my approach would be to calculate how much it would cost and factor that into my ideal price.

That said, I do believe that sellers should stage their homes if they no longer live in them. The house I bought was empty and for that reason I know I could lowball them. Had they staged their house, I believe they would have gotten a better offer.

Spendypants colleague started ranting defensively, claiming they are out of debt as they owe less than $1000 to family and they need furniture because it is "for the house which is an investment" (house is owned by their parents and a bank, and they pay far less than the mortgage to live there).

He is not too far off unfortunately.

Before the '09 crash I watched a lot of HGTV and home selling shows for a period of one to two months. Why I stopped watching was this:

There was one episode of a show where a lady and her husband were unable to their home.

It was one the market for over a year and not a single offer

That meant no one was even interested enough to give a lowball

An interior decorator (the hosts) comes in, spends sub-300$ in paint and pictures and curtains, and rearranges the furniture

Within a few weeks their is a bidding war and they get more than they listed their house for

I had to stop after watching this madness. Just three hundred dollars and a day of labour from an interior decorator turned the house from pathetic to attractive. If a lowball was 15,000 below the listed price and they got 5000 over it, just for how the house looked buyers where willing to pay more than an additional 20K. No one saw the beauty within the home or maybe people don't realize that they don't keep the furniture in the house they buy.

/rant

I don't think you can believe some (most?) of what you see on HGTV...

It's not that unbelievable though. One of realtor friends tells stories about how buyers get turned off by the most superficial things. One house had purple carpet in the living room, and fetched about 15K less than comps because the seller wouldn't replace it. It's amazing how many people can't see the forest for the trees.

Absolutely! When I looked at homes, I could see things that would need to go if I owned it, but my approach would be to calculate how much it would cost and factor that into my ideal price.

That said, I do believe that sellers should stage their homes if they no longer live in them. The house I bought was empty and for that reason I know I could lowball them. Had they staged their house, I believe they would have gotten a better offer.

Personally, I was thinking, sweet 15k discount. Things like that don't bother me, I'm more interested in the bones: foundation, roof, siding, HVAC, electrical. Carpet is very far down on the priority list.

Spendypants colleague started ranting defensively, claiming they are out of debt as they owe less than $1000 to family and they need furniture because it is "for the house which is an investment" (house is owned by their parents and a bank, and they pay far less than the mortgage to live there).

He is not too far off unfortunately.

Before the '09 crash I watched a lot of HGTV and home selling shows for a period of one to two months. Why I stopped watching was this:

There was one episode of a show where a lady and her husband were unable to their home.

It was one the market for over a year and not a single offer

That meant no one was even interested enough to give a lowball

An interior decorator (the hosts) comes in, spends sub-300$ in paint and pictures and curtains, and rearranges the furniture

Within a few weeks their is a bidding war and they get more than they listed their house for

I had to stop after watching this madness. Just three hundred dollars and a day of labour from an interior decorator turned the house from pathetic to attractive. If a lowball was 15,000 below the listed price and they got 5000 over it, just for how the house looked buyers where willing to pay more than an additional 20K. No one saw the beauty within the home or maybe people don't realize that they don't keep the furniture in the house they buy.

/rant

I don't think you can believe some (most?) of what you see on HGTV...

It's not that unbelievable though. One of realtor friends tells stories about how buyers get turned off by the most superficial things. One house had purple carpet in the living room, and fetched about 15K less than comps because the seller wouldn't replace it. It's amazing how many people can't see the forest for the trees.

Absolutely! When I looked at homes, I could see things that would need to go if I owned it, but my approach would be to calculate how much it would cost and factor that into my ideal price.

That said, I do believe that sellers should stage their homes if they no longer live in them. The house I bought was empty and for that reason I know I could lowball them. Had they staged their house, I believe they would have gotten a better offer.

Personally, I was thinking, sweet 15k discount. Things like that don't bother me, I'm more interested in the bones: foundation, roof, siding, HVAC, electrical. Carpet is very far down on the priority list.

Unfortunately my wife is very much like these people. We tour a house and she says "I like the curtains" or "that carpet is nice"... With a 200k purchase price, I want to know about the stuff that is over 500$ to fix. Do the rooms flow correctly, is the house structurally sound, does it shed water appropriately, will the backyard flood, what are the risks of 500-year rain flooding the place... etc etc.

When I sell my house, I will likely get 20k out of the flooring I put in myself for 2000$ (it looked old when we bought it).

Spendypants colleague started ranting defensively, claiming they are out of debt as they owe less than $1000 to family and they need furniture because it is "for the house which is an investment" (house is owned by their parents and a bank, and they pay far less than the mortgage to live there).

He is not too far off unfortunately.

Before the '09 crash I watched a lot of HGTV and home selling shows for a period of one to two months. Why I stopped watching was this:

There was one episode of a show where a lady and her husband were unable to their home.

It was one the market for over a year and not a single offer

That meant no one was even interested enough to give a lowball

An interior decorator (the hosts) comes in, spends sub-300$ in paint and pictures and curtains, and rearranges the furniture

Within a few weeks their is a bidding war and they get more than they listed their house for

I had to stop after watching this madness. Just three hundred dollars and a day of labour from an interior decorator turned the house from pathetic to attractive. If a lowball was 15,000 below the listed price and they got 5000 over it, just for how the house looked buyers where willing to pay more than an additional 20K. No one saw the beauty within the home or maybe people don't realize that they don't keep the furniture in the house they buy.

/rant

I don't think you can believe some (most?) of what you see on HGTV...

It's not that unbelievable though. One of realtor friends tells stories about how buyers get turned off by the most superficial things. One house had purple carpet in the living room, and fetched about 15K less than comps because the seller wouldn't replace it. It's amazing how many people can't see the forest for the trees.

Absolutely! When I looked at homes, I could see things that would need to go if I owned it, but my approach would be to calculate how much it would cost and factor that into my ideal price.

That said, I do believe that sellers should stage their homes if they no longer live in them. The house I bought was empty and for that reason I know I could lowball them. Had they staged their house, I believe they would have gotten a better offer.

Personally, I was thinking, sweet 15k discount. Things like that don't bother me, I'm more interested in the bones: foundation, roof, siding, HVAC, electrical. Carpet is very far down on the priority list.

Unfortunately my wife is very much like these people. We tour a house and she says "I like the curtains" or "that carpet is nice"... With a 200k purchase price, I want to know about the stuff that is over 500$ to fix. Do the rooms flow correctly, is the house structurally sound, does it shed water appropriately, will the backyard flood, what are the risks of 500-year rain flooding the place... etc etc.

When I sell my house, I will likely get 20k out of the flooring I put in myself for 2000$ (it looked old when we bought it).

Assuming the odds are calculated correctly, and it's not more like a once-every-75-year flood. :)

Logged

We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.You can also read my forum "Journal."

Assuming the odds are calculated correctly, and it's not more like a once-every-75-year flood. :)

Ya, we use rainfall data at work and it leaves me wondering how accurate data IS from 1910 or 1875. Then the rates are supposedly based from verified dates/amounts of 1960's onward but they had to mathematically calculate what the rates were for 50 year rainfall and up... The science of SWAGing numbers to be reasonable conservative, lol.

We've had two 1/500 year floods here in the past 40 years, and about 3 1/100 year floods.

Indeed. I've heard similar things often.

And I'd question the accuracy not only due to data limitations, as mentioned above, but (even if those were all accurate and 100% known) due to the ability to project forward based on them, mostly due to the climate changing.

Logged

We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.You can also read my forum "Journal."

We've had two 1/500 year floods here in the past 40 years, and about 3 1/100 year floods.

Indeed. I've heard similar things often.

And I'd question the accuracy not only due to data limitations, as mentioned above, but (even if those were all accurate and 100% known) due to the ability to project forward based on them, mostly due to the climate changing.

Keep in mind depending on the geographic area the "500 year flood" covers, it's not really unexpected that they wouldn't happen.

If for example you split the USA up into 500 pieces, you'd get a "500 year flood" about every year, give or take, and it wouldn't be overly surprising statistically.

True, there's definitely the same bias there that makes people think the world is dangerous today, but hearing about multiple in a given area is either faulty data/predictions, or really, really uncommonly bad luck.

Logged

We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.You can also read my forum "Journal."

True, there's definitely the same bias there that makes people think the world is dangerous today, but hearing about multiple in a given area is either faulty data/predictions, or really, really uncommonly bad luck.

Plus there is always selfish interest in sensationalizing events, pretty much across the entire spectrum whether you are researcher or news media. No one really benefits from making a natural event seem more normal, it's boring. But make it rare? EXCITING.

We've had two 1/500 year floods here in the past 40 years, and about 3 1/100 year floods.

Indeed. I've heard similar things often.

And I'd question the accuracy not only due to data limitations, as mentioned above, but (even if those were all accurate and 100% known) due to the ability to project forward based on them, mostly due to the climate changing.

Keep in mind depending on the geographic area the "500 year flood" covers, it's not really unexpected that they wouldn't happen.

If for example you split the USA up into 500 pieces, you'd get a "500 year flood" about every year, give or take, and it wouldn't be overly surprising statistically.

Increasing sea levels aren't really helping, either.

A true 500 year flood will happen in the Seattle/Vancouver area at some point. That'll be nasty.

A true 500 year flood will happen in the Seattle/Vancouver area at some point. That'll be nasty.

I've wondered how much humans affect this, particularly in how drainage is managed. I know in my city we had some serious flooding within the past decade, but I think part of that is simply due to poor planning and drainage. Newer developments are deliberately and consciously managing this.

It's kind of interesting to think about, really. If you get an inch of rain in a city, think about how much of the city is no longer grass or otherwise capable of absorbing that water. Most cities of any size have a large percentage of land covered in either concrete or buildings. If you cover 50% of the ground, then every rain storm doubly taxes the grounds ability to saturate (ignoring drainage planning).

Similar to Katrina and New Orleans, you can't really build an entire city in a swamp/low area and wonder when it floods. The water has to go somewhere.

Spendypants colleague started ranting defensively, claiming they are out of debt as they owe less than $1000 to family and they need furniture because it is "for the house which is an investment" (house is owned by their parents and a bank, and they pay far less than the mortgage to live there).

He is not too far off unfortunately.

Before the '09 crash I watched a lot of HGTV and home selling shows for a period of one to two months. Why I stopped watching was this:

There was one episode of a show where a lady and her husband were unable to their home.

It was one the market for over a year and not a single offer

That meant no one was even interested enough to give a lowball

An interior decorator (the hosts) comes in, spends sub-300$ in paint and pictures and curtains, and rearranges the furniture

Within a few weeks their is a bidding war and they get more than they listed their house for

I had to stop after watching this madness. Just three hundred dollars and a day of labour from an interior decorator turned the house from pathetic to attractive. If a lowball was 15,000 below the listed price and they got 5000 over it, just for how the house looked buyers where willing to pay more than an additional 20K. No one saw the beauty within the home or maybe people don't realize that they don't keep the furniture in the house they buy.

/rant

Ok if they were intending to sell the house and realise some profit from their modifications but they have no plans to sell it.

I've wondered how much humans affect this, particularly in how drainage is managed. I know in my city we had some serious flooding within the past decade, but I think part of that is simply due to poor planning and drainage. Newer developments are deliberately and consciously managing this.

Where I live, there are a reasonable number of houses in the centre of the village which are 500 years old and which were known to have never flooded. They've all been flooded twice since 2000. Not because of global warming, sea level rises or anything like that, but solely due to drainage effects. New houses built on the edge of the village in the 1970s/1980s with non-permeable driveways and roads means the water gets to the river more quickly than when it just soaked into the ground. Farmers have improved field drainage by digging ditches and removing hedges and small areas of woodland. This again puts any excess rainfall into the river system much more quickly and so river levels rise far more rapidly than the past.

I'm often surprised that while computers (and consumer electronics in general) can be had so cheap (Mini PC <$100, Netbook < $200) so many people are still willing to pay vast amounts of money for the premium stuff.

When I first got into the computer business I was selling 360K Floppy drives for $1,500 each (circa 1983). I had (government) customers at that time who were still winding their own core memories. Moore's law in action!

My Cousin's first electrical engineering co-op job was winding core memories (switching tapes?) for a government system... in 1989, I think. Not so long ago.

I've wondered how much humans affect this, particularly in how drainage is managed. I know in my city we had some serious flooding within the past decade, but I think part of that is simply due to poor planning and drainage. Newer developments are deliberately and consciously managing this.

Where I live, there are a reasonable number of houses in the centre of the village which are 500 years old and which were known to have never flooded. They've all been flooded twice since 2000. Not because of global warming, sea level rises or anything like that, but solely due to drainage effects. New houses built on the edge of the village in the 1970s/1980s with non-permeable driveways and roads means the water gets to the river more quickly than when it just soaked into the ground. Farmers have improved field drainage by digging ditches and removing hedges and small areas of woodland. This again puts any excess rainfall into the river system much more quickly and so river levels rise far more rapidly than the past.

That is a good explanation. Thanks Ender/cerat!

Logged

We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.You can also read my forum "Journal."

Regarding a 100 year flood zone and a 30 year mortgage, the odds of the house flooding while being owned by the bank is 30%. I know it's obvious when it's spelled out, but most people don't put two and two together. They only are unhappy when the lender requires them to purchase flood insurance.

Regarding a 100 year flood zone and a 30 year mortgage, the odds of the house flooding while being owned by the bank is 30%. I know it's obvious when it's spelled out, but most people don't put two and two together. They only are unhappy when the lender requires them to purchase flood insurance.

DC appealed new flood zones (and won) around the time I was buying my house, so I was pretty concerned in finding an appropriate insurance amount. . The new (proposed) 100 year flood zone would have put 1/4 of the city (including the national mall, any fed buildings and almost all of the SW quadrant underwater once every 100 years. That's a huge change in insurance costs, but also would have changed the building code for the area in 100 year zone. There is a massive redevelopment effort underway on the waterfront in that quadrant. that would have required building redesign and increased insurance costs, new building footing if it fell in a flood zone. But DC appealed, so no need to listen to experts when we have tax bureaucrats deciding the proper building code based on what they want to pay rather than on science-predicted events. Just thought that was interesting.

Regarding a 100 year flood zone and a 30 year mortgage, the odds of the house flooding while being owned by the bank is 30%. I know it's obvious when it's spelled out, but most people don't put two and two together. They only are unhappy when the lender requires them to purchase flood insurance.

DC appealed new flood zones (and won) around the time I was buying my house, so I was pretty concerned in finding an appropriate insurance amount. . The new (proposed) 100 year flood zone would have put 1/4 of the city (including the national mall, any fed buildings and almost all of the SW quadrant underwater once every 100 years. That's a huge change in insurance costs, but also would have changed the building code for the area in 100 year zone. There is a massive redevelopment effort underway on the waterfront in that quadrant. that would have required building redesign and increased insurance costs, new building footing if it fell in a flood zone. But DC appealed, so no need to listen to experts when we have tax bureaucrats deciding the proper building code based on what they want to pay rather than on science-predicted events. Just thought that was interesting.

Here's a future news story: "the city of New Orleans has won the appeal to keep the French quarter in the 500 year flood zone. 'The low tide mark is only halfway across the quarter, there's no reason we'll see any flooding' one official was quoted as saying.

Guy I work with, his partner (male couple) has acquired expensive tastes doing his job as an interior designer....

Wanted to purchase a $26,000 lounge.... work mate said no, put the foot down.

The partner does high end designing jobs, last one he was given a budget of $450,000 to furnish a home... just furnishing, no building/renovating.

Easy to lose perspective I reckon. Gotta be careful you don't pick up the habits of those you serve as customers.

This happens all the time in the restaurant industry. Employees will spend all day serving $20 entrees, with bills totaling $50 and up. Then they'll go turn around and do the same, spending $50-$100 for 2 people on $10/hr. Because they earned it.

We've had two 1/500 year floods here in the past 40 years, and about 3 1/100 year floods.

Indeed. I've heard similar things often.

And I'd question the accuracy not only due to data limitations, as mentioned above, but (even if those were all accurate and 100% known) due to the ability to project forward based on them, mostly due to the climate changing.

Quote

The new (proposed) 100 year flood zone would have put 1/4 of the city (including the national mall, any fed buildings and almost all of the SW quadrant underwater once every 100 years.

I think you all (and a lot of officials) fall for a common misconception here. A 100 Year flood does not mean you get a flood every 100 years. It means the HIGHEST flood in 100 years is this amount.There is nothing in this statistic saying you cant have 3 100-year floods (3 times the water gets that high) in one year. Or 50 times a 99year-high flood in 100 years.

My 2 cents: If you want a realistic danger, go for the 10 or at most 20 year flood. 20 year is what german drainage in cities is build for btw. And about once a month a city is flooded because the drainage cant keep up. Because there is more then 1 city.

Guy I work with, his partner (male couple) has acquired expensive tastes doing his job as an interior designer....

Wanted to purchase a $26,000 lounge.... work mate said no, put the foot down.

The partner does high end designing jobs, last one he was given a budget of $450,000 to furnish a home... just furnishing, no building/renovating.

Easy to lose perspective I reckon. Gotta be careful you don't pick up the habits of those you serve as customers.

This happens all the time in the restaurant industry. Employees will spend all day serving $20 entrees, with bills totaling $50 and up. Then they'll go turn around and do the same, spending $50-$100 for 2 people on $10/hr. Because they earned it.

Yet, for the vast majority of the customers the $20 entrees are a treat of some kind for a birthday or anniversary. They come out a few times a year, except for a handful of regulars for whom the restaurant is part of a lifestyle they're committed to and a substitute for other forms of socializing (example: choosing to live in a studio apartment, using a restaurant or pub once a week to socialize with family and friends, and having a lower net cost overall). Going out once or twice a week and spending that amount is overdoing it.

Interestingly, I got an insight on staff culture at high-end restaurants when I briefly went out with a man who was a professional server. By this I mean in the French style, where people do it as a career instead of as a way to put themselves through school or pay the bills until the acting career takes off. It turns out that most of the career waiters don't care to spend their off hours in a restaurant because it's too much like the work environment. The last place this guy wanted to go on a date was out for dinner.

Watched a roofing crew put new shingles on an old house a few years back. No roofing felt under the shingles.

Replaced a door+frame on my house recently. Discovered builders did not wrap the house. Did not attach door frame to the studs. Did not put anything under the door threshold to shed water or seal out water.

Basically build it as quickly as possible and sell it. Our house is okay and problems are getting corrected as we do maintenance like replace HVAC, doors, floors, etc. Well I mean we are doing them to a higher standard than the builders originally did.

Watched a roofing crew put new shingles on an old house a few years back. No roofing felt under the shingles.

Replaced a door+frame on my house recently. Discovered builders did not wrap the house. Did not attach door frame to the studs. Did not put anything under the door threshold to shed water or seal out water.

Basically build it as quickly as possible and sell it. Our house is okay and problems are getting corrected as we do maintenance like replace HVAC, doors, floors, etc. Well I mean we are doing them to a higher standard than the builders originally did.

One of the reasons I am glad we bought a house built in 1927. Sure, being that old presents a different set of issues, but at least it has stood the test of time so far.

Regarding a 100 year flood zone and a 30 year mortgage, the odds of the house flooding while being owned by the bank is 30%. I know it's obvious when it's spelled out, but most people don't put two and two together. They only are unhappy when the lender requires them to purchase flood insurance.

It doesn't quite work out like that. If you own a house for 100 years you don't have 100% chance of it flooding. Just like if you roll a die once, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6, but two rolls doesn't equal 2/6 odds, or else 6 rolls would be 6/6 (100%) chance of rolling a 6.

We've had two 1/500 year floods here in the past 40 years, and about 3 1/100 year floods.

Indeed. I've heard similar things often.

And I'd question the accuracy not only due to data limitations, as mentioned above, but (even if those were all accurate and 100% known) due to the ability to project forward based on them, mostly due to the climate changing.

Quote

The new (proposed) 100 year flood zone would have put 1/4 of the city (including the national mall, any fed buildings and almost all of the SW quadrant underwater once every 100 years.

I think you all (and a lot of officials) fall for a common misconception here. A 100 Year flood does not mean you get a flood every 100 years. It means the HIGHEST flood in 100 years is this amount.There is nothing in this statistic saying you cant have 3 100-year floods (3 times the water gets that high) in one year. Or 50 times a 99year-high flood in 100 years.

My 2 cents: If you want a realistic danger, go for the 10 or at most 20 year flood. 20 year is what german drainage in cities is build for btw. And about once a month a city is flooded because the drainage cant keep up. Because there is more then 1 city.

GOOD point. Bottom line is you can't really predict this stuff ... You can look at historical records but it's really hard to make odds on black swans. Insurance companies try, but I'm not convinced they do a great job

I have a van, and I am starting to see more and more that trucks serve no really useful purpose- that is, intrinsic to trucks and exempt from all other types of vehicles...

A van, YES! We love our 1996 Savana. It's daily transportation, it can haul things, and it's awesome for road/camping/sports trips. It's got a full-sized bed in the back with storage underneath, and room to prepare food and make coffee roadside or on rainy evenings in the campground or rest stop. And, full-sized vans hold their value pretty well.

Those goofy, jacked-up trucks with their comically pompous tires make us laugh.

Regarding a 100 year flood zone and a 30 year mortgage, the odds of the house flooding while being owned by the bank is 30%. I know it's obvious when it's spelled out, but most people don't put two and two together. They only are unhappy when the lender requires them to purchase flood insurance.

It doesn't quite work out like that. If you own a house for 100 years you don't have 100% chance of it flooding. Just like if you roll a die once, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6, but two rolls doesn't equal 2/6 odds, or else 6 rolls would be 6/6 (100%) chance of rolling a 6.

Regarding a 100 year flood zone and a 30 year mortgage, the odds of the house flooding while being owned by the bank is 30%. I know it's obvious when it's spelled out, but most people don't put two and two together. They only are unhappy when the lender requires them to purchase flood insurance.

It doesn't quite work out like that. If you own a house for 100 years you don't have 100% chance of it flooding. Just like if you roll a die once, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6, but two rolls doesn't equal 2/6 odds, or else 6 rolls would be 6/6 (100%) chance of rolling a 6.

Mustache Math! :D It pervades this forum...

That's not how it works, apparently, but if you have a 1/100 chance every year, then over 30 years you have a 26% chance, which is not that different from 30%. So you can quibble about the calculations, but either way the bank is taking a big risk.

We've had two 1/500 year floods here in the past 40 years, and about 3 1/100 year floods.

Indeed. I've heard similar things often.

And I'd question the accuracy not only due to data limitations, as mentioned above, but (even if those were all accurate and 100% known) due to the ability to project forward based on them, mostly due to the climate changing.

Quote

The new (proposed) 100 year flood zone would have put 1/4 of the city (including the national mall, any fed buildings and almost all of the SW quadrant underwater once every 100 years.

I think you all (and a lot of officials) fall for a common misconception here. A 100 Year flood does not mean you get a flood every 100 years. It means the HIGHEST flood in 100 years is this amount.There is nothing in this statistic saying you cant have 3 100-year floods (3 times the water gets that high) in one year. Or 50 times a 99year-high flood in 100 years.

My 2 cents: If you want a realistic danger, go for the 10 or at most 20 year flood. 20 year is what german drainage in cities is build for btw. And about once a month a city is flooded because the drainage cant keep up. Because there is more then 1 city.

GOOD point. Bottom line is you can't really predict this stuff ... You can look at historical records but it's really hard to make odds on black swans. Insurance companies try, but I'm not convinced they do a great job

Insurance compynies are really freaked out about climate change. (Yes, including those in the US, because its their money :D ) They calculate that at the end of the century they will have to pay a multiple because of natural desasters then today. Which they dont like, because they have to increase premium and that means that 1) less profit because the one who goes up first loses customers and 2) less profit because there will be people who cancel all those insurances.

Insurance compynies are really freaked out about climate change. (Yes, including those in the US, because its their money :D ) They calculate that at the end of the century they will have to pay a multiple because of natural desasters then today. Which they dont like, because they have to increase premium and that means that 1) less profit because the one who goes up first loses customers and 2) less profit because there will be people who cancel all those insurances.

This is absolutely true. I work in insurance.

Y'know the old Upton Sinclair quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"? Well, there are more industries who depend on maintaining the illusion that climate change NOT happening (oil, automotive, plastics manufacturing, construction, real estate, etc. etc.) than industries that benefit if climate change is recognized and addressed (insurance, clean energy/technology).

Which is kinda weird, when you think about it, because there's not much else those two industries have in common, and frankly the general culture of insurance hasn't done well at addressing climate change, but we're doing better than most, precisely because we need to be able to predict the future in order to make money. We set the rates we charge for flood and wind insurance based on predictions from past events, but we recognize that the past events can't fully predict the future anymore.

TL;DR: Climate change is happening; you can tell because people who stand to lose money if we ignore it are saying so.

TL;DR: Climate change is happening; you can tell because people who stand to lose money if we ignore it are saying so.

I used to find more climate change information in the business section of the paper than the (almost non-existent) science section. When a forestry company chooses which trees to use in its re-forestry projects it is making decisions based on projected climate change.